Credit

credited As

Birdman, Guardians Of The Galaxy and The Grand Budapest Hotel took home top accolades at the Art Directors Guild awards on Saturday night (31Jan15). A host of stars, including George Clooney, Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, attended the event at the The Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, California.
Guardians of Galaxy took home the Fantasy Film award, The Grand Budapest Hotel was feted with Period Film title and Birdman continued its winning streak through the 2015 awards season by picking up the Contemporary Film honour.
Other winners included TV shows American Horror Story: Freak Show, The Big Bang Theory and Game of Thrones.
The full winners list is:
Fantasy Film - Guardians of the Galaxy
Period Film - The Grand Budapest Hotel
Contemporary Film - Birdman
One-Hour Period or Fantasy Single-Camera Television Series - Game of Thrones
One-Hour Contemporary Single-Camera Television Series - True Detective
Television Movie or Mini-Series - American Horror Story: Freak Show
Half Hour Single-Camera Television Series - Silicon Valley
Awards or Event Special - 86th Annual Academy Awards
Multi-Camera Television Series - The Big Bang Theory
Variety, Competition, Reality, or Game Show Series - Portlandia
Short Format: WebSeries, Music Video or Commercial - Apple 'Perspective'
Cinematic Imagery Award - Christopher Nolan
Lifetime Achievement Awards - Jim Bissell, Camille Abbott, John P. Bruce, Will Ferrell
Hall of Fame Inductees - John Gabriel Beckman, Charles Lisanby, Walter Tyler

The Matrix star Keanu Reeves has revealed he tried to claw his way into the X-Men franchise as Wolverine and put his name forward to portray Batman in director Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. The movie star lost out to Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale and admits both peers did a great job as comic book superheroes.
He tells Moviefone.com, "I always wanted to play Wolverine, but I didn't get that. And they have a great Wolverine now.
"I always wanted to play the Dark Knight but I didn't get that one (either). They've had some great Batmans."
Reeves is now hoping his blockbuster comeback in action film John Wick will help him land a few huge roles in the future.
He tells Indiewire.com, "I haven't been getting many offers from the studios... It sucks, but it's just the way it is."

We opened 2014 with heated anticipation for the next great turns from Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, Christopher Nolan, Lars von Trier, and a number of other cinematic vets. But the year has also treated us to a hefty sum of noteworthy first timers. We've caught a wide variety of debut attempts over the course of these past eight months, with enough qualitative range to incite reactions from "The next Hitchcock!" to "I might be able to get you a gig with my friend who does wedding videos, but don't tell him you know me." Here's a quick rundown of the debut flicks we've seen so far in '14, from great to terrible.
THE GREAT
Tribeca Film via Everett Collection
Palo AltoDirector: Gia CoppolaWhy we're already on her bandwagon: In the vein of her aunt Sofia, the young Gia Coppola showcases an indubitable understanding of upper class ennui.
Hide Your Smiling Faces Director: Daniel Patrick CarboneWhy we're already on his bandwagon: Carbone's primarily wordless coming-of-age drama shows off his patience and pensiveness, not to mention his ability to skirt the self-importance than many films of Smiling Faces' ilk seem to bear.
Obvious ChildDirector: Gillian RobespierreWhy we're already on her bandwagon: It's funny as hell even within the margins of genre tradition, and sweet without succumbing to Hollywood sugar.
THE VERY GOOD
Zeitgeist Films
Zero MotivationDirector: Talya LavieShows promise of: A knack for absurdist humor and grounded character relationships alike.
It Felt Like LoveDirector: Eliza HittmanShows promise of: A uniquely keen empathy for how young people conduct themselves, both internally and among one another.
THE GOOD
Tribeca Film via Everett Collection
The Bachelor Weekend/The StagDirector: John ButlerShows potential in: A good sense of humor, especially when it veers closer to Apatow than McKay.
Are You HereDirector: Matthew WeinerShows potential in: Social commentary through character construction, but Weiner needs a better handle on cinematic pacing.
The One I LoveDirector: Charlie McDowellShows potential in: Big ideas, and the presentation thereof, but lacks in the ultimate execution of where they can and ought to go.
THE SO-SO
Drafthouse Films via Everett Collection
Beneath the Harvest SkyDirector: Aron Gaudet and Gita PullapillyThere's room for improvement regarding: A sharper attention to the characters and story, which occasionally fade out of focus at the behest of a vivid North Maine setting.
LullabyDirector: Andrew LevitasThere's room for improvement regarding The acerbic but knowing humor shared by the central family members, in favor of the intense melodrama that the film feels impelled to stuff itself with from time to time.
Cheap ThrillsDirector: E.L. KatzThere's room for improvement regarding: The energy set toward invoking a truly interesting story or course of events, rather than the allowance of the "weird" or "dangerous" to take the wheel altogether like it does here.
TammyDirector: Ben FalconeThere's room for improvement regarding: An authentic commitment to the sincerity in the characters, in place of wild and wacky antics like jetski crashes and deer mouth-to-mouth... though these were probably studio notes, we have to assume.
THE BAD
Music Box Films via Everett Collection
Winter’s TaleDirector: Akiva GoldsmanWhat we hope he gets right next time: A more defined storytelling goal. While some of the film's elements worked in a vaccuum, Goldsman had been gestating a Winter's Tale adaptation for years, coming out the gate with something that is oddly both convoluted and terribly narrow.
MaleficentDirector: Robert StrombergWhat we hope he gets right next time: More Angie.
A Coffee in Berlin/Oh BoyDirector: Jan Ole GersterWhat we hope he gets right next time: A better understanding of the fine line between cheeky and irritating.
Earth to EchoDirector: Dave GreenWhat we hope he gets right next time: Ditch the essentially pointless found footage antic and hone in on the fleeting spirit of the kids.
THE WORST
Vertical Entertainment
TranscendenceDirector: Wally PfisterWhy we're nervous for his future: Pfister is a skilled cinematographer, but his grasp of character, story, and ambiance seem dangerously absent.
Goodbye to All ThatDirector: Angus McLachlanWhy we're nervous for his future: Ambitions seem to fall shy of originality, settling instead on retreading the same indie dramedy territory we've seen time and time again, but without any discernible charisma.
If I StayDirector: R.J. CutlerWhy we're nervous for his future: A dastardly aesthetic, paper-thin characters, a devoted marriage to teen movie cliches, and a potentially dangerous mentality driving the story altogether do not bode well for Cutler's future behind the camera.
Behaving BadlyDirector: Tim GarrickWhy we're nervous for his future: Because he thought this horrible thing could work.
Follow @Michael Arbeiter | Follow @Hollywood_com

Universal Pictures via Everett Collection/Walt Disney Studios via Everett Collection
As Memorial Day approaches, American moviegoers prepare for an onslaught of summer blockbusters. Whether it's the latest edition of a franchise like X-Men: Days of Future Past or the possible beginning of one like Guardians of the Galaxy, everyone has gotten used to big, expensive films hitting the multiplex when the weather gets warm.
Of course, it wasn't always that way. The mid '70s work of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas helped usher in the current model that studios use in setting their summer releases. While the work of the two directors is iconic, what's followed hasn't always lived up to the term "blockbuster." Our writers argue whether things were better in the days when Lucas and Spielberg ruled the roost or if we're in a new golden age of big budget extravaganzas.
The Spectacular Spielberg (Jon Lisi)
Let’s just assume for a second that Jaws was never released in the summer of 1975.
Cynics might claim that the brilliant New Hollywood films of the 1970s like Five Easy Pieces, Nashville, and The Conversation would continue to be made as a result, but we all know that this so-called “American New Wave” was on the inevitable decline. Instead, we’d have to imagine a cinema in which the first major summer blockbuster from Hollywood was not Spielberg’s terrifying monster movie.
Is it possible to picture the summer blockbuster without Jaws? I don’t think so. For better or worse, Jaws is the gold standard to which all future summer blockbusters have been judged. The question that is asked as a result, then, is whether or not contemporary summer blockbusters like Transformers, Iron Man, The Avengers and other superhero amalgamations compare in quality to past summer blockbusters like Jaws, E.T., Back to the Future, and Ghostbusters?
If we are to answer this question honestly, we need to remove any consideration of money. After all, plenty of movies do well at the box office, and the massive success of the Twilight franchise shows how few of them are actually good. Instead, we need to focus on what the first summer blockbusters like Jaws and Star Wars had that contemporary ones like Transformers and Iron Man lack.
The most significance difference, I think, is that a summer blockbuster like Jaws isn’t about a shark, whereas a summer blockbuster like Transformers is about alien robots. That is, Jaws uses a series of shark attacks to investigate small-town mentality in an entertaining way. You can certainly sit back and enjoy the film literally — as a monster movie — but Spielberg wants you to think about what the shark reveals about American community and the ways individuals work together to solve a common problem.
Transformers, by contrast, doesn’t offer anything interesting beyond the initial spectacle. The digital effects may lure you into the theater, but after the stuff blows up, you aren’t left with anything to ponder. This may not matter to prepubescent boys, but for those interested in mainstream fare that is also intelligent, the contemporary summer blockbuster doesn’t suffice.
I’m aware that there are exceptions. For instance, the films by Christopher Nolan merge commerce and art quite successfully, as do most Pixar films. However, these are anomalies, and for the most part, contemporary summer blockbusters have failed to live up to the standard Jaws set nearly 40 years ago.
A Marvel-ous New Era (Brendon McCullin)
The passage of time tends to lend a glow to the early blockbusters of Spielberg and Lucas. In reality, Spielberg went the Hitchcock route with Jaws because he was forced to by external conditions. And we can argue how much the performances by Richard Dreyfuss, Roy Scheider and Robert Shaw had to do with his directing. Lucas, for his part, might have been great at story concepts but he always had a tin ear when it came to dialogue (leading to the famous Harrison Ford rant, "You can type this s**t, but you sure as hell can't say it").
That's not to denigrate what Spielberg and Lucas did — they each authored cultural phenomena that altered American filmmaking and the movie industry as a whole — but let's not go too crazy. Some of their contemporaries, particularly screenwriters like John Milius and Robert Towne, may have liked them personally, but didn't always love how they handled their craft.
The fact is there has always been and will always be a place in Hollywood for big, crowd-pleasing popcorn movies… and there have always been good and bad ones. Just because Jaws was better than The Towering Inferno and Star Wars was better than Airport '77 doesn’t necessarily kick into the same strata of cinematic history as The Godfather.
If we were having this argument 15 to 20 years ago, I would be completely on board. Back when Michael Bay was unleashing a steady stream of trash like Armageddon and The Rock on audiences and what amounted to good storytelling was Will Smith making wisecracks while fighting aliens in Independence Day… well, yes, that was a low point for summer blockbusters. Heck, that was a low point for film in general.
Since then, however, a new group of filmmakers who value story as much as visual pyrotechnics have taken the lead on some of the biggest tent-pole movies in recent years. Some of them, such as Joss Whedon (The Avengers) and J.J. Abrams (Star Trek) come from the writer dominated domain of television. Others, like Jon Favreau (Iron Man) and Kenneth Branagh (Thor) are themselves actors and work to make their stars look good.
Combine that group with the aforementioned Nolan (The Dark Knight) and the Pixar team under John Lasseter and really, you would be hard pressed to find another period that matched the number of talented, conscientious, and literate filmmakers that are willing to helm blockbusters.
The nice thing is that many of these directors — particularly Whedon and Abrams — clearly gained some of their sensibilities as youngsters watching the films of Lucas and Spielberg. You're never going to get rid of people like Bay and movies like his Transformers franchise, but blockbusters are in as good of hands now as they've ever been.

Walt Disney Co via Everett Collection
With the recent influx of major superhero franchises, whether they’ve just been hitting theaters for the first time or have been rebooted several times over, one key aspect of the archetypal superhero experience has largely been missing: sidekicks. Although a superhero has long been considered incomplete without a wise-cracking boy wonder by his side, the recent Hero Renaissance has all but left lackeys behind altogether.
Take, for example, Batman and Robin, possibly the most iconic superhero/sidekick pairing of all time. Despite being a major part of the comics for over 50 years, Robin has only appeared in three live-action films, the most recent of which was 1997’s Batman and Robin. Although Joseph Gordon-Levitt's John Blake character in The Dark Knight Rises was revealed, in the film's final moments, to be a nod to Robin, this was hardly a bona fide appearance for the character.
Then there’s Bucky Barnes, Captain America’s loyal sidekick, who didn’t get much to do in Captain America: The First Avenger before he disappeared and resurfaced as the Winter Soldier. This time around, Cap’s partners-in-crime are Black Widow and Falcon, both of whom are heroes in their own right.
Batgirl, meanwhile, has only made it into one live-action film – again, Batman and Robin – despite being a major character with her own long-standing comic tradition. Jubilee is often a sidekick to Wolverine in the X-Men comics, but she has never received more than a cameo appearance in any of the films, and none of that screen time would give new audiences the impression that the two characters had any sort of relationship. Both Batgirl and Jubilee have strong fan bases who would likely love to see their favorite characters make it to the big screen. Yet despite having interesting and important storylines in the books, they can’t seem to cross over.
Why, if these characters are so important and popular, are the sidekicks getting cut out of these films? Well, for a start, sidekicks are often portrayed as ridiculous characters, designed for comic relief and to occasionally bail the hero our of whatever trouble he’s gotten into. Although the books give them interesting, compelling backstories and plots that help turn them into a three-dimensional character, their appearances in live-action works haven’t been as layered. It's hard to take Robin seriously as a character when the prevailing image of him featured goofy tights and and eager-to-please attitude. With the trend of superhero films leaning towards the gritty these past few years, there’s no longer a place for the goofy sidekick.
Walt Disney Co via Everett Collection
Warning: The following contains spoilers regarding the identity of the Winter Soldier in the upcoming Captain America film.
Even if the film isn’t aiming for dark realism, it’s hard to translate many sidekick characteristics without the coming across as grating or annoying. When Iron Man 3 added Harley to the film, many audiences were divided over the character. Some found him to be annoying and unnecessary, whereas others thought he added a much-needed venue to explore different elements of Tony Stark’s personality. Comic book sidekicks can suffer from this as well, which likely makes filmmakers reluctant to put them in the movies.. For every X-Men fan who loves Jubilee, there’s one who finds her mall-girl persona insufferable.
Instead, the sidekicks are replaced by other heroes. When Wolverine isn’t being a “lone wolf,” he’s surrounded by major X-Men characters; whoever is closest to him in that film depends on what story the filmmakers are trying to tell. Nolan’s Batman got backup form Catwoman in the most recent film, and even though Falcon’s role in The Winter Soldier fits the idea of what a sidekick would be, the character will likely play a major role in upcoming films. If the Marvel Cinematic Universe decides to stick with the comic book plots, he will become a full-fledged member of the Avengers, and so even now he is treated like a full-fledged hero. If the Winter Soldier ever returns to his old identity as Bucky Barnes, it’s likely that instead of falling back into his old sidekick role, he will be given a larger, more vital part, especially if rumors about Sebastian Stan taking over as Captain America are true.
It’s easier to have your hero supported by other heroes because they have backstories and layers of their own, which usually makes for a better character onscreen, and therefore, a better film. There’s more to work with and more to explore, which allows filmmakers more freedom with the kind of stories that they want to tell. Plus, with regular heroes, audiences don’t have to sit through the annoying puppy-dog stage that all sidekicks seem to go through. Instead, all of the characters are on equal footing, all of them are interesting to watch, and all of them are just as capable of taking down the villain. Besides, more heroes makes for more films, and it's easier to launch a new franchise when you already know how audiences are going to respond to a major character.
However, it is possible to put a sidekick onscreen and not have the film devolve into pure camp. The Iron Man films have allowed Rhodey to be both a traditional sidekick to Tony Stark as well as a funny, interesting, fan favorite. Part of this is due to the fact that the films tend to lean more heavily towards comedy than the rest of the universe, which allows them to explore the idea of a goofy, ridiculous sidekick. When Rhodey cracks jokes, it works because Tony is doing the exact same thing, so there’s no tonal dissonance. But Rhodey also takes part in some of the films’ more serious elements as well. When the films delve more deeply into what’s going on in Tony’s head, his friendship with Rhodey is given a greater weight, and that friendship gives the audience a better insight into Tony as a character. And, of course, he’s around for the major battle sequences, where he does just as much fighting and is just as vital to the villain’s defeat, even though it’s clear that Tony is the one in command.
Though Rhodey has proven that the new generation of superhero films can find room in their lineup for an old-fashioned sidekick, it still doesn't seem likely that other franchises are will be bringing the sidekick back to theaters. For one, the serious, gritty superhero film doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon, with The Winter Soldier exploring the political thriller genre and Batman Vs. Superman planning to bring back the dark, jaded hero. Those films just don't allow for a wise-cracking, tights-wearing sidekick. Even if they did, it's still more likely that a hero who could play a major role in future films will play that part instead. As the superhero universes continue to expand and intercept, sidekicks will continue to be lost in the shuffle, since big-names heroes are always a bigger audience draw than a sidekick, no matter how well-loved they are by fans.
Which means that in the end, the best way for a sidekick to make it to the big screen is for them to embrace their own heroic destiny, and anchor a franchise of their own. After all, Bucky Barnes didn't become a major character in the Marvel Universe until he was brainwashed and turned into a vigilante, and and knowing that Falcon will eventually join the Avengers makes up for the little he gets to do in The Winter Soldier. If studios are afraid of bringing sidekicks, in all of their dumb, tights-clad glory to the big screen, then it might make more sense for them to skip past the awkward stages and bring their own heroic adventures to life. Because in the end, wouldn't we all prefer to watch a Nightwing movie than to sit through Robin tagging along on whatever Batman's doing?
Follow @hollywood_com
//
Follow @julesemm
//

Tribeca Film via Everett Collection
Ten years after voicing Elastigirl in one of the greatest superhero movies of our time (The Incredibles), Holly Hunter might be looking for a new super suit. The Oscar winner has joined the cast of the upcoming Batman Vs. Superman, along with 300: Rise of an Empire actor Callan Mulvey and Wolverine star Tao Okamoto. In a statement about the casting decisions, director Zack Snyder revealed that he created Hunter's role especially for her, saying "Holly has always been one of my favorite actresses. She has immense talent and is always captivating on screen. I had an opportunity to meet her a while back and knew instantly that I had to work with her." Snyder hasn't yet revealed who she, Mulvey or Okamoto will be playing, but has said that all three characters are original.
Of course, that hasn't stopped fans from speculating that the "original" characters may later be revealed as major DC characters, in the same vein as Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate revealing to be Talia al Ghul, or Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison ending up as Khan all along. Given how tightly Snyder and the team behind Batman Vs. Superman have kept details about the film under wraps, and the fact that Hunter will likely play a major role in the film, it wouldn't be surprising if she turned out to be a hero herself. Plus, it has the added benefit of avoiding any fan backlash, since people can't get upset about casting if they don't know who she's playing.
But with three major superheroes in the mix and very few plot details revealed, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what Hunter's potential secret identity could be. Since the film is a Man of Steel sequel and as such part of the Superman universe that Snyder has created, it seems logical for her to play one of his colleagues. There are dozens of reporters and editors at The Daily Planet that Hunter could portray, but we assume Snyder would want to give her a more important or recognizable character. The same rule would apply to the police officers and media moguls that both Kent and Superman deal with, although we wouldn't be surprised if she turned up in an authoritative role. However, if Snyder wanted to expand one of those roles — perhaps Maggie Sawyer, Metropolis police chief? — Hunter would be a great fit.
Unfortunately, many of Superman's powerful friends aren't as iconic as the characters in the Batman family, but there is at least one option that would suit Hunter. If Snyder still wants to explore Superman's origins, she could play Sharon Vance, one of Clark's childhood friends who shared a body with the cosmic entity Kismet, as the character would likely be involved in both stories related to Superman's past and present. In addition, Sharon is monitored by Lex Luthor for a time during the comic books, and Luthor is the main villain of the film, Hunter could play a significant role in that storyline.
However, since Sharon/Kismet only appear briefly in the comics, it seems a bit more likely that Hunter would play someone from Batman's cast of characters. Some fans have already hypothesized that Hunter would play Barbara Gordon, who eventually becomes Batgirl and Oracle. Alternatively, she could also portray Talia al Ghul or Selina Kyle, but the choice to bring those characters into the mix so soon after Christopher Nolan gave his take on them would come off peculiar. And then there are the civilians. The best bet for a Batman character for Hunter might be an everyday citizen who gets roped into the mayhem somehow. We could see Hunter as Sarah Essen Gordon, the wife of Gotham police commissioner James Gordon, who takes over the job from her husband for a short time.
Alternatively, Snyder could turn to the Wonder Woman inner-circle for Hunter's "secret identity," as Batman Vs. Superman will be a launching point for a solo Wonder Woman franchise. Of the three universes, Wonder Woman has the largest number of female supporting characters, none of whom have been portrayed on the big screen, which would make it a bit harder for fans and critics to predict who Hunter might play. For a more action-intense role, Hunter could be any one of the Amazons, although if we had to bet on anyone, it would be Queen Hyppolyta, Wonder Woman's mother and the leader of the tribe.
There is also the possibility that Snyder isn't lying about Hunter's character, and she really will be playing a completely original role (personally, we'd love to see her play a villainous role alongside Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor). Although, based our experience with blockbuster casting mystery, we're having a hard time believing him. Guess we'll all just have to wait until May 2016 to find out.
Follow @hollywood_com
//
Follow @julesemm
//

CBS Television Network
On a recent episode of Person of Interest, we saw a terrorist, whose plan was thwarted by Harold Finch, promise that he would get vengeance on the ingenious gero. Finch might as well have told him to "join the club," since an ever growing number of bad people want to end his life. As such, we wonder if the show is piling on too many of them to the point of it becoming way too convoluted.
The most recent episode was actually a flashback that showed how the bespectacled billionaire operated before he recruited John Reese. It was a fascinating hour that actually had ties to many of the current people on the show, and didn't add a new bad guy to the list of people that would like to see the two vigilantes dead. In this way, it was a rarity among Person of Interest episodes of late.
Who are all the nefarious scoundrels who want Finch and Reese out of the picture? Well, there are the privacy zealots, Vigilance, members of the shadow government, and another reclusive rich man that seeks to destroy Finch and gain control of the Machine. While Jonathan Nolan has done a fantastic job of writing a fascinating world for his characters, it's not unfounded to wonder if too many balls may have been tossed in the air. A couple may break if they land too soon.
Instead of weaving in new bad guys on top of new bad guys, Person of Interest needs to pay more focus to the ones already in play. Most fascinating among them: Root. Let's not forget, out of this whole rogues gallery, Root is the biggest wildcard of them all. Sure, she's been a huge asset to the team of late, rescuing them a couple of times with her dual-pistol-wielding entrances, but it's also very clear she has her own agenda. Her first interaction with them involved kidnapping Finch and subjecting him to watching her kill at least one person. She could very well switch back to being on the side of the devils.
If Person of Interest can set aside its fixation on building up Finch's enemies list, it might be able to give better and more thorough stories to its existing baddies.
Follow @Hollywood_com
//
Follow @literateartist
//

DreamWorks
For the bulk of every Rocky and Bullwinkle episode, moose and squirrel would engage in high concept escapades that satirized geopolitics, contemporary cinema, and the very fabrics of the human condition. With all of that to work with, there's no excuse for why the pair and their Soviet nemeses haven't gotten a decent movie adaptation. But the ingenious Mr. Peabody and his faithful boy Sherman are another story, intercut between Rocky and Bullwinkle segments to teach kids brief history lessons and toss in a nearly lethal dose of puns. Their stories and relationship were much simpler, which means that bringing their shtick to the big screen would entail a lot more invention — always risky when you're dealing with precious material.
For the most part, Mr. Peabody &amp; Sherman handles the regeneration of its heroes aptly, allowing for emotionally substance in their unique father-son relationship and all the difficulties inherent therein. The story is no subtle metaphor for the difficulties surrounding gay adoption, with society decreeing that a dog, no matter how hyper-intelligent, cannot be a suitable father. The central plot has Peabody hosting a party for a disapproving child services agent and the parents of a young girl with whom 7-year-old Sherman had a schoolyard spat, all in order to prove himself a suitable dad. Of course, the WABAC comes into play when the tots take it for a spin, forcing Peabody to rush to their rescue.
Getting down to personals, we also see the left brain-heavy Peabody struggle with being father Sherman deserves. The bulk of the emotional marks are hit as we learn just how much Peabody cares for Sherman, and just how hard it has been to accept that his only family is growing up and changing.
DreamWorks
But more successful than the new is the film's handling of the old — the material that Peabody and Sherman purists will adore. They travel back in time via the WABAC Machine to Ancient Egypt, the Renaissance, and the Trojan War, and 18th Century France, explaining the cultural backdrop and historical significance of the settings and characters they happen upon, all with that irreverent (but no longer racist) flare that the old cartoons enjoyed. And oh... the puns.
Mr. Peabody &amp; Sherman is a f**king treasure trove of some of the most amazingly bad puns in recent cinema. This effort alone will leave you in awe.
The film does unravel in its final act, bringing the science-fiction of time travel a little too close to the forefront and dropping the ball on a good deal of its emotional groundwork. What seemed to be substantial building blocks do not pay off in the way we might, as scholars of animated family cinema, have anticipated, leaving the movie with an unfinished feeling.
But all in all, it's a bright, compassionate, reasonably educational, and occasionally funny if not altogether worthy tribute to an old favorite. And since we don't have our own WABAC machine to return to a time of regularly scheduled Peabody and Sherman cartoons, this will do okay for now.
If nothing else, it's worth your time for the puns.
3/5
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//

August: Osage County director John Wells is to be honoured with the American Society of Cinematographers' (ASC) Board of Governors Award. The writer/director/producer will receive the accolade during the 28th annual ASC Outstanding Achievement Awards on 1 February (14).
The Board of Governors Award is given to "an individual who has made extraordinary achievements in advancing the art and craft of filmmaking".
Wells joins the ranks of Julia Roberts, the star of his acclaimed film August: Osage County, as well as Christopher Nolan and Steven Spielberg, who are all past recipients of the prize.
In addition to his work on the big screen, Wells has enjoyed an illustrious career in television, serving as the executive producer on Emmy-winning medical drama ER, The West Wing, Southland and the U.S. version of Shameless, starring William H. Macy.

WENN / Marvel
There are three ways to sell a movie: sex, violence, and Best Actor in a Miniseries or TV Movie Golden Globe Award winners. Super producer Kevin Feige knows this, and he has roped Sunday night's victor Michael Douglas into the Ant-Man cast. Not a match you would have made, but this is the direction that superhero movies are heading in.
No longer is Marvel stardom limited to refurbished comic actors, abdominably-gifted newcomers, or future self-obsessed outsider art renegades. This latest wave of comic book movies has seen the inclusion of performers of the highest esteem. Douglas joins Paul Rudd, the media-literate public's equivalent of the freakin' pope, in action comedy master Edgar Wright's Ant-Man feature, an announcement that comes a few months after Guardians of the Galaxy tacked on the likes of legends Glenn Close and Benicio del Toro, Academy pet Bradley Cooper, and mainstream comedy mainstay John C. Reilly. Actors with varied, successful careers are flocking to the superhero circuit — good news for the masses, who are taking new interest in this line of releases (which, in turn, is great news for the studios), but is it good news for the existing fans?
While we've seen broad audiences take to superhero flicks since Spider-Man and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man represent a league of superhero series that have, up until now, thrived on small but devoted communities of comic book fandom. The announcement of their film adaptations sparked tiny bursts of glee, but also questions: how are they going to do this right? Guardians and Ant-Man are especially weird properties that A) wouldn't appeal to Avengers-sized audiences as is, but B) would outrage the established fans were it to reform toward general palatability. We can't assume just by the casting of Rudd and Douglas that Ant-Man is going the Hollywood angle, but we can wonder exactly what it has up its sleeve.
Iron Man 3 presents a good example of the concerns of die hard fans (not Die Hard fans though — they probably loved Iron Man 3, which is exactly what we're talking about). The third chapter for Tony Stark, handled by action-comedy kingpin Shane Black, transformed the genre of the Robert Downey Jr. trilogy into something like that which you'd see in his Lethal Weapon scripts, or Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. And to those not stringently adhered to the Iron Man mythology, the movie was fantastic. Fun, goofy, malleable, creative, and hilarious. To those who wanted the Mandarin and Extremis they knew from the comics, it was... enraging.
But more even than the issue of contextual changes is that of the sense of the aforementioned communities of comic book fandom. There is something special about being part of a small union of like-minded, unappreciated folk — e.g., being one of the few who hopped on the Arrested Development bandwagon before the series got its post cancelation hop-ons (but to be fair, you're gonna get some hop-ons). This adherence to exclusivity, this "I was into it before everyone else" mentality, they're not entirely healthy or condusive to authentic appreciation of a piece of art. But the phenomenon was born from necessity: way back when geekiness of all sorts was brandished and those belonging to said genus were ostracized (you know, in that long dead era known as high school), it was the very idea of finding others like you and reveling in your elite appreciation for some piece of underdog genius. It helped many of us get through tough times. Love for comic books, specifically — and what's more, the idea that you were one of a small, special, unique force of "superhuman" devotees — charged some much-needed positive vibes. And although we all should be more than willing to open up our beloved titles and characters to the world, there is always that hesitation. Does Marvel expanding its reach to everyone, does everyone's appreciation of what you once held dear and sacred make it less so? Do these stories about "different" people need to be read and loved only by people who identify as different in order to have their desired impact?
Maybe. But figure this: maybe, this way, they're reaching a young watcher or reader who might otherwise not have had the opportunity to benefit from their glory. Maybe this is the only way that these tales of justice, strength, humanity, integrity, and imagination can get through to everyone who needs them. Don't feel as if you're being forced to sacrifice your place in an "elite" supergroup. Think of it as the characters that saved you moving on to do the same for the rest of the world.
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
//
| Follow @Hollywood_com
//